Why I Don't [strike]Like[/strike] [edit: Get] Wikis

Without editorial control [edit: tyrannical egotistic editors in chief] wikis are at best a good idea done bad.

I've been called a curmudgeon before [edit: because you are] and there
are some technologies [edit: like television] that I don't really see
as astonishingly useful evolutionary steps in the world of information
and technology, but even with that disclaimer, I have to say that I'm
completely unimpressed with wikis and really don't understand why
so many other people love them so [edit: maybe because they're just
smarter than you are, jerk!].

Intellectually, the idea of collaborative editing and maintenance of
text documents is quite appealing, but the pragmatic reality of having
essentially zero editorial control over content is problematic at best
and dangerous at worst. Would you trust a medical encyclopedia built
around wiki technology?

[strike]But let's start by defining a wiki, shall we?[/strike] [edit:
These sort of rhetorical questions are just trite author tricks and
should be axed.]

A wiki, which gets its name from the Hawaiian phrase “wiki
wiki”,
or “quick, quick”, is a simple software application that allows content
to be separated from its presentation to make it trivially easy to
have visitors modify and change any content that they see [edit: on a
wiki-based Web site]. [strike]More sophisticated[/strike] [add: Just
about all] wiki packages have a sophisticated, if arcane [edit: it's
not arcane, you're just stupid] [edit: come on, when =a= and ==a==
produce different formatting, it's pretty arcane] [edit: screw you,
l0s3r] markup language.

If this article were hosted on a wiki [edit: too bad it's not. Then
we could fix all the inane commentary herein], you could decide that you
don't like my definition of the word “wiki”, or even the article
title, click on an edit button and change things to your heart's
content. There's a change-tracking mechanism built into all wiki systems
(and it should be no surprise that's a critical element [edit: if only
to get rid of stupid edits]), but you can imagine that when pages can
be edited and modified five, ten or even 20 or more times daily,
it can [strike]lead to a painful editorial management task[/strike]
[add: be almost impossible to retain any sort of quality control over the
content]. [edit: The point of a wiki is that there isn't any editorial
control, though. This entire premise is false.]

Now, let's say that I wanted to write about the infamous Skull & Bones
Society and its intersection with the Illuminati, Opus Dei and the
Bush family [edit: and your mama, too]. You can easily imagine that
my take on this vast conspiracy might well be dramatically different
from your take, and sure enough, there are certain types of content that
[strike]really[/strike] suffer the worst in wikis, as the on-again, off-again article on JFK's assassination on Wikipedia demonstrates. It
seems that a [strike]crackpot[/strike] [add: guy who didn't buy
the government coverup] decided that there was a conspiracy involved in
Kennedy's assassination and added that to the page. But others felt
otherwise and purged the Wikipedia entry of his content. And he added it
back. And they deleted it. To the point where it's now impossible to
know whether the page reflects the commonly held facts of the situation
or some crank theory. [edit: Truth is subjective.]

Even with smaller groups, I've tried having a wiki for a team of about
a dozen people, and the necessity of using the arcane wiki coding schemes
and confusion of tracking edits rapidly diminished anyone's enthusiasm
for the new technology and the project quickly ran out of steam. [edit:
You were probably all just too st00pd to use a wiki!] Document tracking
in Microsoft Word is far, far easier, and it's not that hard to e-mail
files around, even in this day and age [edit: and horses and buggies?
Is that your speed too?].

I suppose wikis have their place and certainly there are fans who find
them a useful Web-based document “evolution” petri dish, if
you will.
[edit: Sheesh, can we PLEASE purge this guy of his cliches? This is a
terrible article!] [edit: Yeah, and what have you written and published
lately, chump?] [edit: Where is that relevant, l0s3r?] [edit: Can't
you just GO AWAY and leave this page alone?] [edit: I will when it's
accurate] [edit: According to who, you?] [edit: Hey, I can edit this
more than you can. Wanna test me?]

Overall, though, the only time I have seen wikis work is when not
everyone who wanders onto the site can edit the content, but if there's
editorial control, it seems to be counter to the basic premise of wikis,
that they're a tool for leveraging the collaborative editorial efforts
of the public.

That's why I believe that as technologies go, wikis are going to end
up in the good idea, bad implementation, or, perhaps, good concept, bad
fit with reality graveyard. [edit: That's okay, you'll be there too,
Taylor, and this article shows exactly why.]

Dave Taylor has been involved with UNIX and Internet technologies
since 1980 and has picked some winners in the technology sweepstakes
(even in 1980 it was clear that e-mail was the killer app for networks),
but backed some clunkers too. You can pick up the debate
on his business blog The Intuitive Life, at www.intuitive.com/blog.

Dave Taylor has been hacking shell scripts for over thirty years. Really.
He's the author of the popular "Wicked Cool Shell Scripts" and
can be found on Twitter as @DaveTaylor and more generally at
www.DaveTaylorOnline.com.

Anarchy always sound fun until you try it. Then you learn the hard way that structure and discipline are good things, and help you have actual accomplishments, instead of getting lost and wandering in circles.